Ventura v. State, 98-2061.
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Citation | 741 So.2d 1187 |
Docket Number | No. 98-2061.,98-2061. |
Parties | Ernesto VENTURA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Decision Date | 22 September 1999 |
741 So.2d 1187
Ernesto VENTURA, Appellant,v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee
No. 98-2061.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
September 22, 1999.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Consuelo Maingot, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and SHEVIN, JJ.
COPE, J.
Defendant-appellant Ernesto Ventura appeals the sentence imposed after he failed to comply with certain provisions of his plea agreement. We reverse.
In July 1997 defendant entered into a substantial assistance plea under which, if he failed to appear for sentencing, he would be subject to a 60-year habitual offender sentence. Defendant was represented by privately-retained counsel, George Garcia. Defendant did not appear and a capias warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant was subsequently arrested and a sentencing hearing was held in June 1998.
At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Garcia stated only that he had not been in contact with defendant since the July 1997 hearing on the substantial assistance agreement. Mr. Garcia did not offer any statement or evidence on behalf of defendant. Defendant then told the court that he had retained new counsel Sy Gaer, to attend the hearing and speak on his behalf. Because Mr. Gaer had not filed an appearance on behalf of defendant and was not present in the courtroom, the trial court refused to postpone the proceedings and imposed sentence. The court said it would make no difference in any event because the court interpreted the substantial assistance agreement to call for a 60-year sentence, regardless of the circumstances. Defendant asked the court for the opportunity to speak. The court refused that request as well. Defendant was sentenced to the 60-year habitual offender sentence and has appealed. We now reverse.
First, when defendant informed the trial court that he had retained new counsel, the court should have recessed the sentencing hearing to verify the retention and, if true, allowed new counsel to appear and be heard.
Second, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b), before imposing sentence the trial court is required to "entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence." Under the rule, defendant was entitled to make a statement to the court. See Culbertson v. State, 306 So.2d 142, 143...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ryan v. State , No. 3D10–1709.
...preserving, as a practical matter, his appellate rights) and a defendant's right to allocution before sentencing. See Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Barry v. State, 330 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(b). A defendant who maintains his innocence and......
-
Hill v. State, No. 4D17–272
...See Davis v. State , 642 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; Hargis v. State , 451 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Ventura v. State , 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (emphasis added).In an analogous case that was also cited as a basis for this court's ruling in Jean–Baptiste , t......
-
Jean-Baptiste v. State, No. 4D13–660.
...court. Dean v. State, 60 So.3d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ; Chillingworth v. State, 846 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ; Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We previously determined that the trial court “departed from the essential requirements set forth in rule 3.720(b) ” wher......
-
Chillingworth v. State, 4D02-439.
...that are relevant to the sentence. Under the rule, the defendant was entitled to make a statement to the court," Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), as well as present matters in mitigation. Hargis v. State, 451 So.2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Here, the defendant had a......
-
Ryan v. State , No. 3D10–1709.
...preserving, as a practical matter, his appellate rights) and a defendant's right to allocution before sentencing. See Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Barry v. State, 330 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.720(b). A defendant who maintains his innocence and......
-
Hill v. State, No. 4D17–272
...See Davis v. State , 642 So.2d 136, 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; Hargis v. State , 451 So.2d 551, 552 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Ventura v. State , 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (emphasis added).In an analogous case that was also cited as a basis for this court's ruling in Jean–Baptiste , t......
-
Jean-Baptiste v. State, No. 4D13–660.
...court. Dean v. State, 60 So.3d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) ; Chillingworth v. State, 846 So.2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) ; Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). We previously determined that the trial court “departed from the essential requirements set forth in rule 3.720(b) ” wher......
-
Chillingworth v. State, 4D02-439.
...that are relevant to the sentence. Under the rule, the defendant was entitled to make a statement to the court," Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), as well as present matters in mitigation. Hargis v. State, 451 So.2d 551 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Here, the defendant had a......